PrepTest 139, Section 1, Question 7
The photographs that the store developed were quite(45 more words not shown)
The argument relies on assuming(5 more words not shown)
- AIf the store(14 more words not shown)
- BIf neither the(19 more words not shown)
- CIf pictures are(18 more words not shown)
- DIf the customer(17 more words not shown)
- EIf the customer's(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the customer simply took bad photographs.
Unsatisfactory pictures don't automatically mean the store developed them badly. A working camera and undamaged film can still produce a disappointing picture if, for example, the photographer chooses a poor angle. We need to know what caused the problem before assigning it to the store.
The argument rules out defective film and a defective camera. It also considers what follows if the customer's claim about handling the film is true. Notice that last qualification: we don't have to decide whether she is telling the truth. The conclusion promises a refund if she is.
What we’re looking for
Under that assumption, three possible explanations have been eliminated. Does that leave improper processing as the only explanation? That's the missing step. We already have a rule saying improper processing earns a refund. For the argument to rely on that rule, it needs to get from the other possibilities being ruled out to the store having processed these pictures improperly.
Working the answers
- A
This starts with a refund being owed and tells us that the camera and film weren't defective. We already know they weren't defective. What we need is a reason to conclude that the store processed the pictures improperly and therefore owes a refund. A's relationship goes in the wrong direction to provide that missing step.
- BCorrect
For these unsatisfactory photographs, B says that once the camera, film, and customer's handling are cleared, improper processing follows. That's precisely the connection the argument needs. If her claim is true, all three conditions are met; the store then processed the pictures improperly, and the stated refund rule applies.
- C
The camera wasn't defective. A claim about what could happen when a camera is defective therefore doesn't resolve this case. It also doesn't tell us that eliminating a camera defect leaves improper processing as the explanation for these pictures.
- D
The conclusion concerns what follows if the customer handled the film correctly. D concerns the opposite situation. Even if mishandling would explain bad photographs, we still need to establish the cause when mishandling hasn't occurred.
- E
We aren't trying to show that she gets no refund if her claim is false. The argument says she does get one if her claim is true. Those are different claims. The store could conceivably owe a refund in other circumstances, too; excluding every such circumstance isn't needed to defend the stated conclusion.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.